Last week’s Tameside Advertiser contained an article about MP’s expenses and in particular those of my local MP James Purnell, in which he vigorously defended the expenses he had personally claimed.
Mr Purnell regrets the current expenses system has brought MP’s integrity into question. However he misses the point - it’s not the system (which MP’s devised) that has brought their integrity into question – it’s the way individual MP’s have abused the rules governing their expenses, sometimes spectacularly, which has sparked feelings of anger and revulsion towards MP’s from the law-abiding majority in a way not seen in living memory. This of course is a cross-party issue in so much that corruption seemingly knows no boundaries, such is the extent of the sleazy behaviour of so many.
In Mr Purnell’s case, he claims around £1,500 a month tax free for housing costs on whichever London property he has owned or rented at any one time. He is able to do this on the basis that his constituency home in Broadbottom is his main residence. One has to ask whether this is justified?
For example, Commons guidelines states that a member’s main home is generally the place where the member spends the majority of their time, that is, 183 days/nights or more each year. Has Mr Purnell has spent anything like 183 nights in his Broadbottom house in the last 12 months, in the sense that he actually slept on the premises overnight? Because if he hasn’t, his claim that his constituency house is his main residence fails, and his claim for £1,500 a month tax free allowance becomes invalid.I suspect only Mr Purnell, his close friends, and his neighbours know the answer to that particular conundrum. I wonder whether local folk will be able to throw some light on whether Mr Purnell’s claim to spend the majority of his time in Broadbottom stands up to scrutiny?
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Nadine Dorries MP
An open letter to Nadine (since she won't publish it on her blog)
Whether you can legitimately claim ACA seems to hang on the issue of where your main home is. On the basis that you spend a considerable amount of time in the constituency (commuting back and forth with fellow workers - admirable) and you spend most of the parliamentary recess abroad, it seems you have little (by comparison) opportunity to spend days and nights at your rented Cotswold property.
Therefore it is difficult to see how you could reasonably pass the Green Book test that your main home (the rented Costswold property) is normally the place where you spend most (the majority) of your time.
On the face of it, and without anyone having details of the precise number of nights spent in each location over a 12-month period, it would seem that it is the constituency house that is your main residence, in so much you spend more time there than anywhere else.
Which would mean you are not reasonably entitled to claim the ACA on that property, despite your shrill claims to the contrary.
Correct me if I'm wrong Nadine, but that's how it looks from analysis your own words, on your blog, which to be fair, seem rather rambling and have not as yet justified your claim to the allowance.
Whether you can legitimately claim ACA seems to hang on the issue of where your main home is. On the basis that you spend a considerable amount of time in the constituency (commuting back and forth with fellow workers - admirable) and you spend most of the parliamentary recess abroad, it seems you have little (by comparison) opportunity to spend days and nights at your rented Cotswold property.
Therefore it is difficult to see how you could reasonably pass the Green Book test that your main home (the rented Costswold property) is normally the place where you spend most (the majority) of your time.
On the face of it, and without anyone having details of the precise number of nights spent in each location over a 12-month period, it would seem that it is the constituency house that is your main residence, in so much you spend more time there than anywhere else.
Which would mean you are not reasonably entitled to claim the ACA on that property, despite your shrill claims to the contrary.
Correct me if I'm wrong Nadine, but that's how it looks from analysis your own words, on your blog, which to be fair, seem rather rambling and have not as yet justified your claim to the allowance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
